Appeals court upholds the travel ban suspension

[Dee*Jay]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-appeals-court-maintains-suspension-of-trumps-immigration-order/2017/02/09/e8526e70-ed47-11e6-9662-6eedf1627882_story.html?utm_term=.baa65f2f2af5

I can only imagine the fury forthcoming from the Commander In Tweet!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Here is the text of the article for anyone who doesn't subscribe or want to click on the link. Anything in brackets like this [ ] is a link in the article but it just shows up as words here -- sorry.



A federal appeals court has maintained the freeze on President Trump’s controversial immigration order, meaning previously barred refugees and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries can continue entering the U.S.

A panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the ruling of U.S. District Judge James Robart, who had decided Friday that Trump’s temporary travel ban should be put on hold. The Department of Homeland Security soon suspended all enforcement of Trump’s controversial directive.

[Read the 9th Circuit’s opinion on the travel ban]

The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, could now ask the Supreme Court — which often defers to the president on matters of immigration and national security — to intervene. The Supreme Court, though, remains one justice short, and many see it as ideologically split 4-4. A tie would keep in place whatever the appeals court decides.

A Justice Department lawyer, representing the Trump administration, and Washington state’s solicitor general, representing the opposition, made their final pitches to the appeals court Tuesday at a contentious hearing. Both sides faced skeptical questioning, and the panel seemed particularly interested in what evidence Trump relied upon in implementing his order, and what limits the Justice Department saw on the president’s authority to set immigration policy.

[Trump decries ‘disgraceful’ opposition as appeals court weighs immigration order]

Judge Michelle Taryn Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked a Justice Department lawyer if the government had “pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism.”

Judge Richard Clifton, a President George W. Bush appointee, noted that the government already had processes in place to screen people coming from those countries and asked, “Is there any reason for us to think that there’s a real risk or that circumstances have changed such that there’s a real risk?”

“The president determined that there was a real risk,” responded the August E. Flentje, the Justice Department lawyer.

[Travelers from Iran board flights to the United States following stay, attorney says]

Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell asserted that reinstating the ban would “throw the country back into chaos,” and he pleaded with judges to maintain the status quo of the past several days. He asserted that Trump’s order was intentionally discriminatory, pointing to public statements from Trump and his allies as evidence.

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, for example, recently said: “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said: ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ ” On the campaign trail, Trump himself called for a “complete and total shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S.

Federal immigration law undeniably gives the president broad authority to bar people from coming into the U.S., stating that if the president finds “the entry of any aliens” would be “detrimental” to the country’s interests, he can impose restrictions. But lawsuits across the country have alleged that Trump’s particular order ran afoul of the Constitution in that it intentionally disfavored Muslims.

Flentje did offer the judges a fallback option: they could, he said, limit Robart’s order so that it only applied to foreigners previously admitted to the country who were abroad now or those who wished to travel and return to the United States in the future. Purcell said the government had not demonstrated how they could practically implement such a solution.

Trump and his supporters have pressed the case that the short-term stoppage on refugees and immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen is necessary for national security reasons. Trump went so far as to suggest on Twitter that if an attack were to happen, the judiciary were to blame. On Wednesday, he denounced arguments about his order as “disgraceful” and said “a bad high school student” would understand the broad authority the law gives him to impose immigration restrictions.

A day earlier, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Congress he thought judges might be considering the issue from an “academic” perspective instead of the national security lens through which he views the world.

[Trump lashes out at ‘so-called judge’ who temporarily blocked entry ban]

“Of course, in their courtrooms, they’re protected by people like me,” Kelly said.

Federal courts in New York, California and elsewhere already had blocked aspects of the ban from being implemented, although one federal judge in Massachusetts declared that he did not think that challengers had demonstrated that they had a high likelihood of success. The case before the 9th Circuit, though, was much broader than the others, because it stemmed from a federal judge’s outright halting of the ban. It was decided by Friedland, Clifton, and Judge William C. Canby Jr., who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter.

 

[Arcadian]

Well this is going to be interesting.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Has anyone seen Rudy G. lately?

Methinks he is probably in hiding somewhere.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Has anyone seen Rudy G. lately?

Methinks he is probably in hiding somewhere.

Jenn, I swear the CB and I just had this conversation not 10 seconds ago!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Here is the full text of the opinion. It is, in my opinion (no pun intended), well written. It is also "simple" in that it is clear and says what is has to say. Some opinions I've read (and I'm probably well into the thousands at this point... ) are quite a bit "fancier" than they need to be.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-full-text/index.html

 

[ruby59]

Trump has responded

"see you in court" which I assume he is appealing before the Supreme Court.

 

[Dee*Jay]

I think my favorite part is on page 25:

"The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a "Muslin ban"..."

Oops! Maybe Cheeto von Tweeto should learn to keep his mouth shut!

 

[katharath]

Ahahaha!!!

This is going in my thread as well, for posterity:

 

[Dee*Jay]

Trump has responded

"see you in court" which I assume he is appealing before the Supreme Court.

No surprise there!

 

[the_mother_thing]

Trump has responded

"see you in court" which I assume he is appealing before the Supreme Court.

Not if he's smart (yea yea I know ... the jokes write themselves).

Until his SCOTUS is appointed, it's a lost cause with only 8 justices. At best he would get a tie and the current ruling would stand.

He really needs a better political strategist (along with a few broken fingers and a wicked case of laryngitis).

 

[ruby59]

Trump has responded

"see you in court" which I assume he is appealing before the Supreme Court.

Not if he's smart (yea yea I know ... the jokes write themselves).

Until his SCOTUS is appointed, it's a lost cause with only 8 justices. At best he would get a tie and the current ruling would stand.

He really needs a better political strategist (along with a few broken fingers and a wicked case of laryngitis).

So I imagine that the Dems will really stall proceedings for Gorsuch, as he would be the tie breaker.

 

[redwood66]

This was no surprise to me from the most liberal court of appeal. Been expecting it for two days.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Ruby: Probably, and that's a darn shame because many lauded him in his previous nom.

Politics aside - here is what scares me: we don't know what Chump knows, what the CIA knows, what DHS, NSA, etc. knows ... God help us if there is something they know that we don't (by virtue of classification, etc), and another attack, 9/11, etc happens which could have been prevented by this EO ... I HOPE that doesn't happen, but people chewed Bush's butt for not doing enough before 9/11, and now it's the opposite. That's all ... not going to debate it; just putting that out there.

 

[katharath]

This was no surprise to me from the most liberal court of appeal. Been expecting it for two days.

You should've let Don know, maybe saved him from having to look like such a surprised angry toddler!

 

[redwood66]

Ruby: Probably, and that's a darn shame because many lauded him in his previous nom.

Politics aside - here is what scares me: we don't know what Chump knows, what the CIA knows, what DHS, NSA, etc. knows ... God help us if there is something they know that we don't (by virtue of classification, etc), and another attack, 9/11, etc happens which could have been prevented by this EO ... I HOPE that doesn't happen, but people chewed Bush's butt for not doing enough before 9/11, and now it's the opposite. That's all ... not going to debate it; just putting that out there.

People should have been chewing Clinton's butt for it even harder.

 

[the_mother_thing]

People should have been chewing Clinton's butt for it even harder.

He was a bit distracted by someone else's butt.

 

[lovedogs]

Hooooraaayyy!!! Thrilled by this decision. Thank goodness for checks and balances .

 

[Indylady]

Trump has responded

"see you in court" which I assume he is appealing before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court would have to grant cert first.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Hooooraaayyy!!! Thrilled by this decision. Thank goodness for checks and balances .

Toward that point, I particularly like the first two paragraphs under "Reviewability of Executive Order" (Pages 14 and 15). I can't find a version of the order where I can copy and paste the language and there's too much to type, but the court basically says, contrary to Chump's assertion, actually we DO have the right to rule on this.

 

[lovedogs]

Hooooraaayyy!!! Thrilled by this decision. Thank goodness for checks and balances .

Toward that point, I particularly like the first two paragraphs under "Reviewability of Executive Order" (Pages 14 and 15). I can't find a version of the order where I can copy and paste the language and there's too much to type, but the court basically says, contrary to Chump's assertion, actually we DO have the right to rule on this.

YUP! Plus it was unanimous, which is glorious. Courts 100% have the right to rule when POTUS does something unconstitutional. Silly Trump.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I certainly hope he can learn to cope with this

 

[Dee*Jay]

Trump has responded

"see you in court" which I assume he is appealing before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court would have to grant cert first.

I've been wondering what the likelihood of that is. I'm afraid for them to do so may appear to imply that the lower court(s) did not do an adequate job with this. Of course they could grant cert for other reasons, including to send a message -- assuming the outcome is the same. It may also set the precedent for every decision that Chump doesn't like to be run up the chain.

I really hope the SC decides to deny certiorari.

 

[the_mother_thing]

When it comes to a matter of presidential action & constitutionality, the SCOTUS would render themselves absolutely worthless if they refused to hear the case.

 

[kenny]

... Cheeto von Tweeto ...

Hahahaha!

 

[kenny]

YUP! Plus it was unanimous, which is glorious.
Courts 100% have the right to rule when POTUS does something unconstitutional.
Silly Trump.

Me thinks becoming pres is the best thing that ever happened to 'Cheeto von Tweeto'!
(Worst thing for USA )
For the first time in his pathetic little small-handed life someone is finally saying NO! to that bitch.

 

[Dee*Jay]

... Cheeto von Tweeto ...

Hahahaha!

Matata gets full credit for that one -- I got it from her!

 

[AnnaH]

Isn't this the court that's frequently overturned?

 

[Dee*Jay]

When it comes to a matter of presidential action & constitutionality, the SCOTUS would render themselves absolutely worthless if they refused to hear the case.

That's the thing... I don't disagree with you but I also see the validity in supporting the lower court.

 

[kenny]

... Cheeto von Tweeto ...

Hahahaha!

Matata gets full credit for that one -- I got it from her!

Matatatatatatat ...